From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goldwasser v. Geller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 21, 1999
257 A.D.2d 489 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

January 21, 1999.

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.).


Defendants-appellants, all limited partners in the partnership in which the nonappealing defendants were the general partners, assumed a fiduciary duty to plaintiff, also a limited partner aggrieved by the general partners' nonfeasance, when they took over managerial control of the partnership. They breached this duty when, knowledgeable of plaintiff's whereabouts, they chose not to contact him, and settled with the general partners in a manner that breached section 23 (a) of the partnership agreement. As damages for such breach, plaintiff is entitled to the amount he would have received had he been a party to the settlement agreement, which was properly computed by the trial court on the basis of the formulas in section 3 (a) of the settlement agreement and section 14 of the partnership agreement. However, the underlying stock should have been valued as of the date of its distribution to defendants, and we modify accordingly. We have considered defendants' other arguments and find them unpersuasive.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.


Summaries of

Goldwasser v. Geller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 21, 1999
257 A.D.2d 489 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Goldwasser v. Geller

Case Details

Full title:DIRK GOLDWASSER, Respondent, v. ANTHONY L. GELLER et al., Defendants, and…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 21, 1999

Citations

257 A.D.2d 489 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
684 N.Y.S.2d 210

Citing Cases

International Equity Investments v. Opportunity Equity

Oliver Decl. ¶ 6. Accord Goldwasser v. Geller, 257 A.D.2d 489, 489, 684 N.Y.S.2d 210, 210 (1st Dep't 1999)…

Goldwasser v. Geller

We note that appellants challenge only the initial finding of ambiguity, not the subsequent findings of fact…